IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated the 18'-11 day of February 2010 :BEFORE: .s THE HO1\'z"BLE MRJUSTICE ; L.NARAYANA~ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 106 :9.'/%"2'r;nf:r BETWEEN : B.M.Narayanasvvamy, . 1 S / 0 Shri Muniyappa, , A Aged about 35 years, Ra:i1;iS§1ndra~, V . Hulimangala Post, Jigani, " AnekalTa1uk. ...Appe1la.nt [ By Sri Shifip§1dVV'\f.V_S}ias;"tii1gtfiaicivocate. } 1. V .. Shri Raf:;;aoi1ai1dr'a S/to' Shri f§rishi1.appa,_ N'o'.3.12;VMuthasan--dra Village, 'Via Va1'thui~,. Bang?dore~87. 2.; --. The New .1nd:-A Assurance Co. Ltd., V 'Region"ai .Q_fiic,e, Unity Buiiding Annexe, _ ' *7iNo't;2&B, Mission Road, Banga1ore~«27, ' " .. . » by its 'Manager. A AV ...Respondents Sri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate for R-2. } _ "Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 'A'1'7A3(1) of the M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 13.3.2007? passed in M.V.C.No. sews/2005 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge 81 Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore, partiy ailowing the claim petition for f compensation and seeking enhancement of Compensation. This appeal coming on for admission this the court delivered the following : l i it it JUDGMENT
Though this matter is
the consent of both the .pa1jtiesl,lӣV_lha.Ve
finally disposed ofthis V l vi it
2. This appeal V jiidgment and
award dated 8676/ 2005
on the _ awarding a
-. Feeling aggrieved by
the “e:toin4pensation, the appeilant has
pfefefred this-‘a,pp__eai seeking enhancement.
,i’ea*rned counsel for the appellant submitted
that,,.__”asiA«:l”per the wound Certificate issued by the St.
t. ;JHohIi”s Medical College Hospital, the appeilant has
i ‘sustained the following injuries:
i) lacerated wound over the right side of the fore
head above the rigid eye brow.
Tribunal has taken Rs. 100/— per day. Hence, it is
submitted that for the job of a mason, RS.200/- per day
could have been taken as the income. In respect of the
multiplier, the Tribunal has adopted 16 and
multiplier according to Sarla Verma’s i-:’I’_he
learned counsel also submitted,’ that ‘.iti”‘respleetv”0i’
future medical expenses the aAppe’lla:1t requ_i’res iariother
Rs.15,000/- Whereas the__v”‘iTrib1inval hasavllstay-cmiea (mtg
Rs.8,000/-. _
5. The learned ‘c_oi’;.nsel Rni2″‘Ensurance Company
submitted that the jdlsmissed since it
does’ not 1n_e’rit__. lie also submitted that, in the
absenceof any ‘income, the income taken by the
‘I’r;ibi1nal is’ and proper and in respect of other
has been awarded by the Tribunal is
~. __c’a,.lci1lated. He further submitted that, in the
Elarla Verma’s case, only the higher multiplier is
A’ regtiired to be taken.
After hearing the learned counsel for both sides as
H above, it is clear that the injury Nos.1, 4 and 5
K
‘s
sustained by the appellant are serious injuries and he
was working as a mason. Under the circumstances, E
feel that in respect of the following heads, enhancement
is required.
7. Under the head of loss of ,a1n_enit_ies’ a_’nothe’r
Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. For :’eoni_r’ey’an’ce.”1″1o:.1risii.@§nt,
food and incidental charge.s’;…Vin the lightf..Vof;.t’i1-e…doctors
evidence and also certifi.cat.e, another
Rs.20,000/– is awii.1d_ecil”Rsubmitted that the
appellant an than 51 days and
the ‘i’rib1iné;i._ in respect of
atte;nda_nt’dsif::ha_rges*…:_l”‘-Under the head of loss of earning
durinlg-.1:a.id the amount is required to be
er_-§hla.nced i”3y._l_Vl2V1notl1er Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has
loss of earning by taking Rs.3,000/–
H ~. Viper Vfnionthgkvhich is on the lower side for a mason.
“R”s.4,000/- per month has to be taken. If we
A’ ‘caicnlate at this rate, the compensation will come to
f”r§lRsl.1,3s,240/M (4000 x 1.2 x 1*? x 18/100). The
H difference comes to Rs.34,560/–. In respect of future
medical expenses, asyfiper the doctors evidence, it
requires another Rs.15,000/-, whereas only Rs.8,000/–
hasbeen granted. Hence, it is required to be enhanced
by another RS.7,000/-.
8. Hence, the appeliant will be entitled
compensation of Rs.81,560/« which sfieiii i’n.teres’1:»
at 6% per annum from the dat;e’of;’_’;’)e’titio:1’té:E:1 of
deposit. Appeal is a1IowetdL”InV_part’